deadliestfictionfandomcom-20200214-history
User blog:El Alamein/El Alamein's Edges: BG1's Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3
Mmkay, so--this is a vote for BG1's Modern Warfare 3 vs. Battlefield 3 battle. It is in blog format because it will be much, much easier to follow like this than cramped up in a tiny comment, and it will also help preserve some space for his commenting section so that way there's one less wall of text clogging it. ''El Alamein's Edges: ' Weapons' 'Close Range (Melee): For melee, we're going to analyze the Glock Combat Knife, the Riot Shield, and the Machete vs. the KA-BAR, M9 Bayonet, and the Machete. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| Glock Combat Knife= *'''11 inches with a 6.5-inch blade *'Clip point blade' *'Glock polymer scabbard' *'Can be used as throwing weapons' Pros: Versatile in combat, can be used at a distance Cons: Low corrosion resistance, relatively short blade |-| Riot Shield= *'Covers average man from top of head to the knees' *'Can be bullet resistant against low-velocity handgun/shotgun rounds' *'Better against fragmentation/splash damage from explosives' *'Can be used in melee fashion' Pros: Offers defense as well as offense, can be used as makeshift cover Cons: Big, bulky, attracts attention, not resistant to higher-caliber rounds |-| Machete= *'~18-inch blade' *'Hacking/slashing attacks' *'Useful against foliage as well as people' Pros: Large and intimidating, offers longer reach, can inflict serious wounds with ease Cons: Makeshift weapon, difficult to use in extremely close quarters Battlefield 3 |-| KA-BAR= *'11.8 inches with a 7-inch blade' *'Single-edged clip point blade' *'Stacked leather washer scabbard' *'Can kill a bear' Pros: Reliable military-grade combat knife Cons: 'Relatively short blade |-| M9 Bayonet= *'12 inches with a 7-inch blade *'Clip point blade' *'Attaches to M16/M4-series weapons as bayonet' Pros: Can be attached to end of some rifles, military-grade knife, can be used as wire-cutting tool Cons: Relatively short blade, Iranian Army and PLR not equipped with compatible rifles for bayonet |-| Machete= *'~18-inch blade' *'Hacking/slashing attacks' *'Useful against foliage as well as people' Pros: Large and intimidating, offers longer reach, can inflict serious wounds with ease Cons: Makeshift weapon, difficult to use in extremely close quarters Analysis Both arsenals here have their strengths and weaknesses. The combat knives obviously bring reliable lethality in the event of a close-quarters encounter. Battlefield 3's team has a bit of a weakness in that the faction with the bayonet is not equipped with a compatible rifle, meaning they're carrying glorified combat knives that won't be as effective when they're not jutting out of the business end of a big bad gun. The machetes are going to be scary but probably not as combat practical in such a large-scale situation. What tips the comparison in favor of Call of Duty for me is the Riot Shield--sure it might not protect against concentrated, raw firepower but it offers a level of tactical variation that Battlefield's teams simply don't have. The Riot Shield can offer makeshift cover in case some of their troops get pinned down, or a Riot Shield-wielding soldier can expose himself to draw fire in case some other assets are being targeted and they need to divert some of that enemy fire elsewhere. Up-close it's definitely a mean piece of work to contend with and one thing it will protect against for sure is another melee weapon. Both teams have combat knives and both teams have machetes, but because Modern Warfare 3 can shake things up with a shield, they get the edge. 'Short Range (Pistols):' For short range, we're going to analyze the USP .45, the FN Five-Seven, the MP412, and the Desert Eagle vs. the M9, the MP-443 Grach, and the Glock 17C. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| USP.45= *'.45 ACP' *'12-round magazine' *'50 m effective range' *'1.74 lbs.' *'4.41 inch barrel' Pros: .45 offers good stopping power Cons: Smaller-than-average magazine |-| FN Five-Seven= *'FN 5.7x28mm' *'20-round magazine' *'50 m effective range' *'1.6 lbs.' *'4.8 inch barrel' Pros: Large magazine Cons: Low stopping power |-| MP412= *'.357 Magnum' *'6-round cylinder' *'Double action' *'1.98 lbs.' *'6 inch barrel' Pros: '''High stopping power, longer barrel '''Cons: Slow fire rate, low ammo capacity, slow reload time |-| Desert Eagle= *'.50 Action Express' *'7-round magazine' *'200 m maximum firing range' *'4.2 lbs.' *'6 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, longer barrel Cons: Relatively heavy, high recoil, low ammo capacity Battlefield 3 |-| M9= *'9x19 mm Parabellum' *'15-round magazine' *'50 m effective range' *'2.1 lbs.' *'4.9 inch barrel' Pros: Decent magazine size, reliable weapon Cons: Low stopping power |-| MP-443 Grach= *'9x19 mm Parabellum' *'18-round magazine' *'50 m effective range' *'2.125 lbs.' *'4.4 inch barrel' Pros: Large magazine size Cons: Low stopping power |-| Glock 17C= *'9x19mm Parabellum' *'17-round magazine' *'50 m effective range' *'1.6 lbs. (unloaded)' *'4.49 inch barrel' Pros: Large magazine size Cons: Low stopping power Analysis To me, the edge here is pretty straightforward. Call of Duty's arsenal is severely hampered by the presence of a revolver and the Desert Eagle, both of which do offer high-caliber firepower, but at the cost of fire rate, accuracy, magazine size, and reload time. The Battlefield 3 arsenal might not shine out in any particular category, and their reliance on the 9x19mm Parabellum round won't necessarily send the Call of Duty team scrambling for solid cover, but at least they won't have to worry about recoil smacking them in the face or reloading in time during an intense firefight. 'Medium Range:' For medium range, we're going to analyze the MP5, M1014, AA-12, PP90M1, Striker, and Winchester Model 1887 vs. the UMP 45, Remington Model 870, AKS-74U, USAS-12, Saiga-12K, and Benelli M4. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| MP5= *'9x19mm Parabellum' *'800 rds/min' *'200 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'6 lbs.' *'8.9 inch barrel' Pros: High rate of fire Cons: 'Low stopping power |-| M1014= *'12 gauge *'Semi automatic' *'50.2 m effective range' *'7+1 round internal tube magazine' *'8.42 lbs.' *'18.5 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic, decent magazine size Cons: 'Short range, lengthy reload |-| AA-12= *'12 gauge *'300 rds/min' *'100 m effective range' *'8-round box magazine' *'16 lbs.' *'17.99 inch barrel' Pros: Fully automatic, high stopping power, above-average shotgun range Cons: 'Low magazine size, especially for an automatic weapon |-| PP90M1= *'9x19mm Parabellum *'800 rds/min' *'200 m effective range' *'64-round helical magazine' *'6.3 lbs.' *'7.7 inch barrel' Pros: High rate of fire, large magazine size Cons: Low stopping power |-| Striker= *'12 gauge' *'Semi automatic' *'Probably ~50 m effective range' *'12-round revolving cylinder' *'9.7 lbs.' *'14 inch barrel' Pros: '''High stopping power, semi-automatic, large magazine size '''Cons: Short range, long reload time |-| Winchester Model 1887= *'12 gauge' *'Lever-action' *'Probably ~50 m effective range' *'5+2 round tubular magazine' *'8 lbs.' *'30 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, decent magazine size Cons: Slow fire rate, short range, lengthy reload Battlefield 3 |-| UMP 45= *'.45 ACP' *'600 rds/min' *'65 m effective range' *'25-round box magazine' *'5.8 lbs.' *'8 inch barrel' Pros: Higher stopping power, more controllable rate of fire Cons: Shorter range, smaller magazine |-| Remington Model 870= *'12 gauge' *'Pump-action' *'Probably ~50 m effective range' *'7+1 tubular magazine' *'8 lbs.' *'30 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, decent magazine size Cons: Slow fire rate, short range, lengthy reload |-| AKS-74U= *'5.45x29mm' *'650 rds/min (100 rds/min practical)' *'400 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'6 lbs.' *'8.1 inch barrel' Pros: Good effective range, good stopping power Cons: Slower fire rate |-| USAS-12= *'12 gauge' *'400-450 rds/min' *'30-40 m effective range' *'10-round box magazine' *'13.6 lbs.' *'18.1 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, fully automatic weapon, ease of reload with box magazine Cons: Short range, low magazine size, (especially for automatic weapon) |-| Saiga-12K= *'12 gauge' *'Semi-automatic' *'Probably ~50 m effective range' *'10-round detachable box magazine' *'7.7 lbs.' *'16.9 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic, ease of reload with box magazine Cons: Short range |-| Benelli M4= *'12 gauge' *'Semi-automatic' *'50.2 m effective range' *'7+1 tubular magazine' *'8.42 lbs.' *'18.5 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, semi automatic, decent magazine size Cons: Short range, lengthy reload Analysis Hmmm. This here is a tough one. I like MW3's submachine gun loadout because they're bringing two simple weapons to the table--the MP5 and the PP90M1, which bring a good balance of high fire rate and large magazine sizes. They lack stopping power with the dinky 9mm, but nonetheless there will be much less of a logistical strain and they will be able to suppress the Battlefield 3 soldiers a lot easier as a result. Shotgun-wise, it's not looking good for team CoD. Their Striker is gonna be a nightmare to reload and the Model 1887's awkward lever-action won't do it any favors in a modern firefight. The AA-12 is admittedly the superior automatic shotgun when compared with the USAS-12, thanks to its significantly longer effective range, but I don't see that individual weapon as being very significant in such a large firefight. Battlefield 3, alternately, is bringing in the UMP 45 and the AKS-74U, with the mindset of stopping power over fire rate. The .45 ACP and the 5.45x29mm (which is a rifle cartridge) will really lay down the hurt on the CoD team, and with a slower rate of fire they will have a much more manageable and practical fire rate (at the cost of having a harder time keeping their foes suppressed). Their shotguns are also generally much more reliable, with simple box or tubular magazines and either semi-automatic or pump-action fire modes that don't make things unnecessarily complicated (looking at you, Striker and Model 1887). Here I'm going to give the edge to Team Battlefield because when it comes to automatic weapons, fast is (more or less) fast. Yeah, 600 rds/min loses out when compared to 800 rds/min but I wouldn't really wanna stick my head up regardless of the fire rate zipping past my position. What makes the difference is the significantly superior stopping power brought in by their SMGs and the across-the-board reliability of their shotguns, which I think will enable them to hit harder as the fight moves closer-in. It's certainly close, but these factors give Battlefield 3 a significant advantage in mid range. 'Long Range:' For long range, we're going to analyze the M4A1, ACR, M14 EBR, PKP Pecheneg, MK46, AK-47, SCAR-L, L86 LSW, RSASS, FAD, M60E4, and Dragunov vs. the M16A4, M416, M40A5, M240, AK-74M, AEK-971, RPK-74M, Dragunov, KH2002, G3A3, and M98B. *Phew* Try saying all that in one breath. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| M4A1= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'700-950 rds/min (can cycle between fully- and semi-automatic)' *'500-600 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'7.5 lbs.' *'14.5 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate, light, reliable, select fire Cons: Low(er) stopping power, rate of fire somewhat high for its magazine size |-| ACR= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'800 rds/min' *'500 m effective range' *'30-round Magpul magazine' *'8.85 lbs.' *'14.25 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate Cons: Somewhat unreliable (prone to slamfiring), rate of fire somewhat high for its magazine size |-| M14 EBR= *'7.62x51mm NATO' *'Semi-automatic' *'800+ m effective range' *'10-round box magazine' *'11.24 lbs.' *'18 inch barrel' Pros: Long range, high stopping power, good accuracy, semi-automatic Cons: Heavy |-| PKP Pecheneg= *'7.62x54mmR' *'600-800 rds/min' *'1500 m effective range' *'200-round belt' *'18 lbs.' *'25.9 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, long range Cons: Heavy, belt magazine prone to jamming |-| MK46= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'100 rds/min' *'700 m effective range' *'100-round linked belt' *'22 lbs.' *'18 inch barrel' Pros: Controllable rate of fire, long range Cons: Heavy, belt magazine prone to jamming, low(er) stopping power |-| AK-47= *'7.62x29mm' *'600 rds/min' *'350 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'9.5 lbs.' *'16.3 inch barrel' Pros: '''Very reliable, good stopping power '''Cons: Poor accuracy at a distance, shorter effective range |-| SCAR-L= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'625 rds/min' *'500 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'7.3 lbs.' *'14 inch barrel' Pros: Light, accurate Cons: Low(er) stopping power |-| L86 LSW= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'610-775 rds/min' *'300 m effective range' *'100-round drum mag' *'14.5 lbs.' *'25.4 inch barrel' Pros: Large magazine capacity, accurate Cons: Shorter effective range, low(er) stopping power |-| RSASS= *'7.62 NATO' *'Semi-automatic' *'800-1000 m effective range' *'20-round magazine' *'15.75 lbs.' *'18 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, long range, accurate Cons: Loses usefulness at closer ranges |-| FAD= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'550 rds/min' *'300 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'7.94 lbs.' *'20 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate Cons: Low(er) stopping power, shorter effective range |-| M60E4= *'7.62x51mm NATO' *'500-650 rds/min' *'1100 m effective range' *1'00-round disintegrating belt' *'21.3 lbs.' *'22 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, long range Cons: Heavy, belt magazine prone to jamming |-| Dragunov SVD= *'7.62x54mmR' *'Semi-automatic' *'800 m effective range' *'10-round box magazine' *'9.48 lbs.' *'24.4 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic Cons: Shorter effective range for a sniper rifle Battlefield 3 |-| M16A4= *'5.56x54mm NATO' *'700 rds/min' *'550 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'8.79 lbs.' *'20 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate Cons: 'Low(er) stopping power |-| M416= *'5.56x54mm NATO *'700-900 rds/min' *'300 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'7.25 lbs.' *'10 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate Cons: Shorter effective range, low(er) stopping power |-| M40A5= *'7.62x51mm NATO' *'Bolt-action' *'800 m effective range' *'5-round integral box magazine' *'14.48 lbs.' *'24 inch barrel' Pros: Accurate, high stopping power Cons: Bolt-action, small magazine size, shorter effective range for a sniper rifle |-| M240= *'5.56x45mm NATO' *'100 rds/min' *'700 m effective range' *'100-round linked belt' *'22 lbs.' *'18 inch barrel' Pros: Controllable rate of fire, long range Cons: Heavy, belt magazine prone to jamming, low(er) stopping power |-| AK-74M= *'5.45x39mm' *'600 rds/min' *'500 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'8.01 lbs.' *'16.3 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, reliable Cons: Loses accuracy over distance |-| AEK-971= *'5.45x39mm' *'900 rds/min' *'500 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'7.3 lbs.' *'16.5 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, reliable Cons: Loses accuracy over distance, rate of fire too high for magazine size |-| RPK-74M= *'7.62x39mm' *'650 rds/min' *'1000 m effective range' *'45-round box magazine' *'10 lbs.' *'23.2 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, long range Cons: Somewhat small magazine size for LMG |-| Dragunov SVD= *'7.62x54mmR' *'Semi-automatic' *'800 m effective range' *'10-round box magazine' *'9.48 lbs.' *'24.4 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, semi-automatic Cons: Shorter effective range for a sniper rifle |-| KH2002= *'5.56x54mm NATO' *'800-850 rds/min' *'450 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'8.15 lbs' *'30 inch barrel' Pros: Good accuracy Cons: Low(er) stopping power |-| G3A3= *'7.62x51mm NATO' *'500-600 rds/min' *'500 m effective range' *'30-round box magazine' *'9.04 lbs.' *'17.7 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power Cons: Loses accuracy over distances |-| M98B= *'.338 Lapua Magnum' *'Bolt-action' *'Range not specified (damn it!), but probably at least ~800 m' *'10-round box magazine' *'13.5 lbs.' *'27 inch barrel' Pros: High stopping power, probably decent range Cons: Bolt-action, small magazine size Analysis Holy hell, that was a lot of weapons to analyze. Both teams are bringing in a lot of cutting-edge weaponry when it comes to the long-range category, and they have a nice balance of the 5.56x54mm NATO round and the 7.62x39mm round, which means they'll be able to land long-ranged shots with relative accuracy but still be able to shred opponents to pieces up-close, depending on the gun. When it comes to the sniper rifles both teams also bring in a nice mix of semi-automatic and bolt-action rifles, so it's going to be a bitterly-fought contest for sure between the marksmen of the teams. One thing I did notice, though, is that the Battlefield team does seem to be bringing in slightly more modern weaponry. Whereas Modern Warfare 3 has weapons like the AK-47 and M60, both decent weapons in their own right but certainly outclassed in the present day, Battlefield's got upgraded, modern variants of their team's respective firearms like the AEK-109, the AK-74M and the RPK-74M. That being said, I still don't really see that as being much more than a slight advantage. What it really will come down to is training, experience, and some other X-Factors because when it comes to the weapons themselves there's just too many factors to make the call. It's even. 'Explosive Weapons:' For explosive weapons, we're going to analyze the AT4, M203, 9-Bang, M67, Stinger, XM25, Flashbang, Semtex, RPG-7, GP-25, Concussion grenade, and M2 mortar vs. the M320, SMAW, M67, C4, SA-18, GP-25, RGD-5, M18 smoke grenade, IED, M18 Claymore, and M15 Anti-tank mine. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| AT4= *'440g HEAT round' *'Single-shot' *'300 m effective range' *'14.8 lbs.' *'40 inches' Pros: Decent range, anti-vehicular and anti-personnel Cons: Single-use weapon, somewhat bulky |-| M203 Grenade Launcher= *'40x46mm SR' *'Single-shot, reloadable' *'150 m effective range' *'3 lbs.' *'12 inch barrel' Pros: Already attached to rifle, good anti-personnel weapon Cons: Only fires one grenade before reload |-| 9-Bang= *'Concussion device' *'Explodes nine times in rapid succession' *'Light' *'Portable' Pros: Explodes 8 more times than a regular flashbang, disorients foes Cons: Non-lethal device |-| M67 Grenade= *'0.4 lbs Comp. B' *'4-second fuse' *'0.875 lbs.' *'15 m lethal radius' Pros: Light, portable, lethal Cons: Can be thrown back at user |-| Stinger= *'HE Annular blast warhead' *'Surface-to-air missile' *'5.0 miles effective range' *'33.5 lbs.' *'1.52 m long' Pros: Long range, relatively easy to use Cons: Heavy, ineffective against non-vehicular targets |-| XM25= *'25x40mm' *'Semi-automatic' *'5-round box magazine' *'500 m effective range' *'14 lbs.' *'29.5 inches long' Pros: Light, portable, decent magazine capacity Cons: Uh... none apparent, really. It's a cool weapon. |-| Flashbang= *'Blinding flash of light' *'170 dB bang' *'Light' *'Portable' Pros: Can disorient enemy Cons: Won't kill enemy |-| Semtex grenades= *'Stick to people in Call of Duty' *'Apparently filled with C4' *'Uh... yeah' Pros: '''Can stick to targets, can't be thrown back '''Cons: Won't roll or anything, pretty much direct impact needed to kill |-| RPG-7= *'40mm' *'Single-shot, reload' *'200 m effective range' *'15 lbs.' *'37.4 in.' Pros: Long range, high explosive, reloadable Cons: Inaccurate at distance, only fires one round before reload |-| GP-25 grenade launcher= *'40 mm' *'Single-shot, reloadable' *'400 m effective range' *'3.31 lbs.' *'4.7 inch barrel' Pros: Already attached to rifle, good anti-personnel weapon Cons: Only fires one grenade before reload |-| Concussion grenade= *'Kills with concussive force rather than fragmentation' *'2 m lethal blast radius in open areas (augmented in confined spaces)' *'Light' *'Portable' Pros: Useful in confined spaces''' Cons: Small blast radius, highly situational |-| M2 Mortar= *'60 mm' *'1815 m maximum range' *'Crew of 3 required' *'18 rds/min' *'42 lbs.' *'2 ft 5 inch barrel' Pros: Indirect fire weapon, very long range, relatively accurate Cons: Heavy, takes time to set up, requires a crew to operate Battlefield 3 |-| M320 grenade launcher= *'40x46 mm SR' *'Single-shot, double action' *'150 m effective range' *'3.3 lbs.' *'11 inch barrel' Pros: '''Portable, good anti-personnel weapon '''Cons: Only fires once before reload, double action slows rate of fire |-| SMAW= *'83 mm' *'Single-shot' *'500 m effective range' *'16.92 lbs.' *'54 inches long loaded' Pros: Good anti-assault/anti-armor weapon, long range, only requires crew of one Cons: Heavy, bulky |-| M67 grenade= *'0.4 lbs Comp. B' *'4-second fuse' *'0.875 lbs.' *'15 m lethal radius' Pros: Light, portable, lethal Cons: Can be thrown back at user |-| C4= *'Detonated with PETN DetCord' *'RDX filling' *'Plastic explosive' Pros: Adaptable, easily concealable, remote detonatable Cons: Highly situational |-| SA-18= *'2.6 lbs. warhead w/ 14 oz. explosives' *'Surface-to-air missile' *'3.2 miles effective range' *'24 lbs.' *'5.16 ft long' Pros: Long range, effective against aircraft as well as ground vehicles Cons: Very large and heavy |-| GP-25 grenade launcher= *'40 mm' *'Single-shot, reloadable' *'400 m effective range' *'3.31 lbs.' *'4.7 inch barrel' Pros: Already attached to rifle, good anti-personnel weapon Cons: Only fires one grenade before reload *|-| RGD-5= *'TNT filling' *'3.2-4 second fuse' *'15-20 m lethal radius' *'0.68 lbs.' Pros: '''Portable, light, lethal '''Cons: Can be thrown back at user |-| M18 smoke grenade= *'250-350 g colored smoke composition' *'Exothermic' *'Used for signaling' Pros: Can coordinate attacks/mark targets, can mask friendly troop movements Cons: Not lethal |-| IED= *'Explosive composition varies' *'Weight, blast radius vary' *'Usually proximity-triggered, although can be remote-detonated' Pros: '''Easily concealable, very deadly '''Cons: Not always reliable |-| M18 Claymore= *'C4 filling' *'50 m blast radius' *'Fires hundreds of ball bearings' *'Can be remote detonated or set up with tripwires' *'3.5 lbs.' Pros: Highly deadly, low profile Cons: 'Only fires in 180 degree radius |-| M15 Anti-tank mine= *'Primarily a track-breaker (immobilizes vehicles) *'Does severe damage against lighter vehicles (trucks, APCs)' *'22.7 lbs. of Comp. B' *'352-749.5 lbs. trigger pressure plate' Pros: Highly effective against vehicles Cons: Not a good anti-personnel weapon Analysis To me this is fairly straightforward. In terms of standard hand grenades, underbarrel grenade launchers, and shoulder-mounted anti-personnel launchers both teams are more or less even. You've got a decent variety with stuff like the M203, GP-25, M67, and RGD-5 present all-around, and in a large-scale fight slight variations won't be significant enough to determine a serious edge. What will, though, is the effectiveness of these weapons against vehicles, and that is where I believe Battlefield 3 has an undeniable advantage. The only unique weapon that Modern Warfare 3 is bringing here is the M2 mortar, and while its long range and potential for accuracy is certainly powerful, it's a crew-served weapon and it needs to be assembled before use, which will greatly hamper its combat potential if a crew member is killed or if they need to change positions. Alternately, Battlefield 3 enjoys a more significant level of sucess with its SMAW beating Modern Warfare 3's AT-4 by virtue of being able to be used multiple times (as well as having a notably longer range); its variety of ground-based mines, something which Modern Warfare 3 lacks entirely and which will pose a serious threat to both infantry (with the Claymore) and vehicles (with the M15 mine); and finally the strategic advantage of the M18 smoke grenade over the 9-Bang and Flashbang grenades. This last one is especially significant because while the nonlethal stun grenades have the potential to disable an enemy long enough to leave him open to a killing shot, the smoke grenade can mark enemy targets for long-ranged explosive strikes from the aerial or ground vehicles present (as well as mask friendly troop movement if the need for a retreat arises). This means that Battlefield 3's soldiers can coordinate much more effectively with their air forces than Modern Warfare 3's soldiers could ever hope to do, and makes Battlefield 3's airstrikes that much more potent and destructive on a large scale. Battlefield 3 gets a significant edge here. 'Special Weapons (Ground/Air Support):' For special weapons (here "special weapons" meaning the ground/air support vehicles present in the fight) we're going to analyze the UGV, Jeep Wrangler, Humvee, M1A2 Abrams Tank, BTR 80, GAZ-2975, Technical, Mi-24 Hind, Osprey, F-15 Eagle, AH-64 Apache, Predator Drone, Mi-8 "Hip", Mi-28 Havoc, and MQ-9 Reaper vs. the Growler ITV, LAV-25, GAZ 3937 Vodnik, T-90 A, BMP-2, Type 72Z, VDV Buggy, AH-6 Little Bird, F/A-18 E Super Hornet, Z-11W, Ka-60 Kasatka, Su-25TM Frogfoot, and Su-35BM Flanker E. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 |-| UGV= *'2 cm armor plating' *'Minigun' *'Mk. 47 grenade launcher' Pros: Remote operated, doesn't risk operator in direct combat, relatively versatile Cons: Lightly armored, environmental awareness limited to operator's awareness |-| Jeep Wrangler= *'2-seats' Pros: Fast, mobile, maneuverable Cons: No heavy armaments, light-to-no armor |-| Humvee= *'70 mph top speed' *'Unarmored (except for bulletproof doors/windows)' *'M2 heavy machine gun' Pros: Fast, mobile, maneuverable Cons: No heavy armaments, light-to-no armor |-| M1A2 Abrams Tank= *'Crew: 4' *'120 mm smoothbore gun' *'.50 caliber M2HB machine gun' *'25 mph off-road' *'600 mm hull/turret armor' Pros: Decent armor, heavily-armed Cons: Relatively slow |-| BTR 80= *'Crew: 3 (+7 passenger spaces)' *'14.5 mm KPVT machine gun' *'7.62 mm PK machine gun' *'50 mph (6 mph in water)' *'I couldn't find armor specification' Pros: Decent armor, decent armaments Cons: Primarily a personnel carrier rather than combat vehicle |-| GAZ-2975= *'Crew: 2 (+9 passenger spaces)' *'7.62 mm PKP Pecheneg machine gun' *'50 mph off-road' *'7 mm armor' Pros: Decent armor, armaments Cons: Primarily a personnel carrier rather than combat vehicle |-| Technical= *'Pickup truck with machine gun' *'No armor' Pros: Highly mobile Cons: No armor |-| Mi-24 Hind= *'Crew: 2' *'12.7 mm Gatling gun' *'UB-32 S-5 rockets' *'208 mph' *'4900 m service ceiling' |-| Osprey= *'Crew: 4' *'GAU-19 Minigun' *'316 mph' *'7620 m service ceiling' |-| F-15 Eagle= *'Crew: 1' *'1x20 mm Vulcan Gatling gun' *'4x Sparrow, 4x Sidewinder missiles' *'Mach 2.5+' *'20,000 m service ceiling' |-| AH-64 Apache= *'Crew: 2' *'1x30 mm chain gun' *'Hydra 70 mm rockets' *'182 mph' *'6400 m service ceiling' |-| Predator Drone= *'Remote operated' *'2x AGM Hellfire missile' *'135 mph' *'7620 m service ceiling' |-| Mi-8 "Hip" = *'Crew: 3' *'S-5 rockets' *'161 mph' *'4500 m service ceiling' |-| Mi-28 Havoc= *'Crew: 2' *'30 mm cannon' *'Anti-tank missiles and S-5 rockets' *'201 mph' *'4950 m service ceiling' |-| MQ-9 Reaper= *'Remote operated' *'4x AGM Hellfire missiles' *'300 mph' *'15240 m service ceiling' Battlefield 3 |-| Growler ITV= *'4-seater' *'M2 HB .50 caliber machine gun' *'65 mph off-road' Pros: Fast, maneuverable Cons: Lightly armored |-| LAV-25= *'Crew: 3 (+6 passenger spaces)' *'M242 25 mm chain gun' *'2x M240 7.62 mm machine guns' *'62 mph' Pros: Fast, mobile, maneuverable Cons: Light armor, primarily a personnel transport |-| GAZ 3937 Vodnik= *'Crew: 2' *'14.5 mm KPVT machine gun' *'7.62 mm PK machine gun' *'74.5 mph' Pros: Fast, mobile, maneuverable Cons: No heavy armaments, light armor |-| T-90 A= *'Crew: 3' *'125 mm smoothbore gun' *'12.7 mm heavy machine gun' *'37 mph off-road' *'650 mm armor' Pros: Decent armor, heavily-armed Cons: Relatively slow |-| BMP-2= *'Crew: 3 (+7 passenger spaces)' *'30 mm automatic cannon' *'7.62 mm PK machine gun' *'28 mph (6 mph in water)' *'33 mm armor' Pros: Decent armor, decent armaments Cons: Primarily a personnel carrier rather than combat vehicle |-| Type 72Z= *'Crew: 3' *'105 mm rifled tank gun' *'7.62 mm coaxial machine gun' *'40 mph off-road' *'150 mm armor' Pros: Decent armor, armaments Cons: Relatively slow |-| VDV Buggy= *'Transport vehicle with KORD machine gun' *'No armor' Pros: Highly mobile Cons: No armor |-| AH-6 Little Bird= *'Crew: 2' *'30 mm chain gun' *'Hydra 70 mm rockets' *'175 mph' *'5700 m service ceiling' |-| F/A-18 E Super Hornet= *'Crew: 1' *'1x20 mm Vulcan Gatling gun' *'4x Sidewinder, 2x Sparrow missiles' *'Mach 1.8' *'15000 + m service ceiling' |-| Z-11 W= *'Crew: 1' *'4x HJ Anti-tank missile' *'57 mm rocket launchers' *'172 mph' *'5240 m service ceiling' |-| Ka-60 Kasatka= *'Crew: 2 (+15 passenger spaces)' *'191 mph' *'5700 m service ceiling' *'No armaments (transport helicopter)' |-| Sukhoi Su-25= *'Crew: 1' *'30 mm GSh cannon' *'S-25 rockets' *'Mach 0.82' *'7000 m service ceiling' |-| Sukhoi Su-35 = *'Crew: 1' *'30 mm GSh cannon' *'S-25 rockets' *'Mach 2.25' *'18000 m service ceiling' This one is a bit closer, with both teams having more or less equal footing on the ground. Modern Warfare 3's team seems to be a bit more lightly armored with vehicles like the Wrangler, Humvee, and Technical (which, to be honest, won't offer much tactical advantage at all), but Battlefield 3 has its fair share of light vehicles like the Growler and LAV-25. The difference here comes from the air. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 is bringing eight aerial vehicles to the fight as compared to Battlefield 3's 6 aerial vehicles, and those two extra aerial vehicles are unmanned. The Predator Drone and MQ-9 Reaper will enable Modern Warfare 3's soldiers to enjoy air support from operators far away and safe from combat, meaning that even if these vehicles are destroyed and their offensive capabilities are eliminated, nobody actually dies on Modern Warfare 3's team. The same can't be said for Battlefield 3. Also, Modern Warfare 3 brings in what is (in my opinion) the best aerial vehicle present with the F-15 Eagle, which will give them another definite advantage in the fight in the skies. This is a much closer comparison than some of the other ones, but Modern Warfare 3 still gets the edge. ''WINNER: BATTLEFIELD 3 And here is why. Modern Warfare 3 is certainly going to pose a serious threat--I'm not contesting that whatsoever. In fact, their aerial superiority is going to force the Battlefield 3 soldiers to muster everything they can do combat the threat from above. However, Battlefield 3's superior ground weaponry--largely their submachine guns, shotguns, and explosive weapons--will let them deal with the enemy on the ground while still engaging the enemy in the air. The fact remains that Modern Warfare 3's aerial advantage was still very, very slight and if concentrated fire is directed at their air forces they won't be able to keep that pressure going for long. Then there's the question of the warriors themselves present. Task Force 141 and the Delta Force are combat-tested modern warriors who are capable of standing up to large-scale warfare, as are the USMC, Russian Ground Forces, and the Iranian Army. However, the Inner Circle, African Militia, and PLR are either insurgent/rebel movements or else terrorist groups who prefer to use unconventional methods of indirect combat to achieve their goals--methods that won't be especially useful in a direct confrontation like this one. Even worse for the Modern Warfare 3 team is the fact that at least the PLR has governmental support while the Inner Circle and the African Militia do not, meaning that while the PLR is going to be Battlefield 3's weak link, they won't be anywhere near as much a liability as will be the Inner Circle and (especially so) the African Militia. My last point takes into consideration their games of origin. Modern Warfare 3's games are all based on small-scale squad-based skirmishes, with occasional and limited air support depending on the game type. These warriors are used to fighting their opponents on a very personal level and often prefer individual action over cohesive teamwork. Battlefield 3's games are all based on large-scale objective-based battles, with large amounts of vehicles (both air and ground) present for the entire duration of the fight. These warriors are used to fighting their opponents as part of a fluid and cooperative team that ''needs to work together to ensure success. That mindset will play very handily in favor of Battlefield 3 in such a large-scale battle here (with over 100 men present per side)--Modern Warfare 3's soldiers simply aren't used to such communication and coordination and as such will not be able to organize themselves as effectively as Battlefield 3's troops. Category:Blog posts